Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> > To me, it comes down to not wanting to be stuck with the > > syntactic sugar DOM insists on. I don't see attributes as > > being in that category, since they hold real data. I'd rather > > just not spend the memory. > > That doesn't strike me as a problem of the DOM - it strikes me as a > processing problem that hasn't been well-solved. Well, not consistently. We are in a maze of twisty little passages, all different ... :) There are plenty of solutions to this one. > The DOM (and Infoset, IMHO) need to be able to represent everything XML > 1.0 offers. People who need less should be able to turn those things off. I'd turn that around: people who need more (in DOM) should be able to turn them on. Core APIs should bias towards simplifying; it's easy to add complexity later (likely even inevitable), but you can't add simplicity after-the-fact. > Unfortunately, no one seemed to like the > controlled-streaming-into-a-tree model at the time these things started, > and now we've just got pileups. I think there were plenty of folk who liked it, it's just that they weren't the ones calling the shots ... :) One thing to keep in mind is that DOM came out of the "Dynamic HTML in JavaScript" world, which didn't start out as a decent (systems) programming language. The browser DOM implementations couldn't easily adopt such models. - Dave
|
